Modern Dispensationalism and the Doctrine of the Unity of Scripture

The rejection of the Old Testament, in part or in whole, was one of the numerous errors of the Gnostics

Oswald T. Allis (1880-1973)

I

No doctrine concerning Scripture is of more practical importance to the
Bible student than that which affirms its unity and harmony. Obviously,
the trustworthiness, perspicuity and plenary inspiration of Scripture
cannot be maintained aside from the belief that the Bible is a thoroughly
self-consistent whole. The Westminster Confession of Faith in enumerating
some of the "incomparable excellencies" of Scripture, mentions
"the consent of all the parts." And it is on the basis of
a recognition of this essential feature that the Westminster divines laid
down this "infallible rule" for the interpretation of Scripture:

"The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture
itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full
sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one) it may be searched
and known by other places that speak more clearly."1

1. Chap. I, 9.This rule has been called the "analogy of Scripture" or the "analogy of faith." Its meaning and importance has been well stated by Hodge:

"If the Scriptures be what they claim to be, the word of God, they
are the work of one mind, and that mind divine. From this it follows that
Scripture cannot contradict Scripture. God cannot teach in one place anything
which is inconsistent with what He teaches in another. Hence Scripture
must explain Scripture. If a passage admits of different interpretations,
that only can be the true one which agrees with what the Bible teaches
elsewhere on the same subject."2

2. Systematic Theology, Vol. I, 187.This great doctrine has been recognized and accepted, more or less clearly
and consistently, by the Christian Church throughout its history. It has
been a sign of heresy to reject or ignore any part or portion of Holy
Writ. Thus the rejection of the Old Testament, in part or in whole, was
one of the numerous errors of the Gnostics. Within comparatively recent
times--a century or more--this doctrine has been challenged by two quite
different groups, both claiming a place within the Christian Church.

The so-called "Higher Criticism" has as one of its most characteristic
and fundamental assumptions the denial of the unity and harmony of the
Scriptures. In place of the doctrine of the "consent of all the
parts," it posits the doctrine of the dissent of all or many of the
parts. It divides the Pentateuch, for example, into documents which differ
from and even contradict one another; and it is not too much to say that
these documents are constructed on the basis of, and with a view to establishing
and illustrating, the alleged differences. Thus, the opening chapters
of Genesis are alleged to evidence two different and contradictory traditions
as to the antiquity of the covenant name LORD (JHWH). According to one
tradition (the J account) the name was known and used from the earliest
times; according to the other (the P account) it was first used in the
days of Moses. So considered the Higher Criticism may be described as
a quest of contradictions. Document is pitted against document; and it
is simply astonishing the number of differences and contradictions which
the enterprising critic can find in narratives which to the uninitiated
show remarkable evidence of unity, continuity and harmony. The Higher
Criticism is justly entitled to the name "divisive," because
it divides up Scripture into documents which have no existence except
in the imagination of the critics. The Higher Criticism is also rightly
called "destructive" because the divisive method which it employs
is destructive of the ordered and organically progressive unity of the
Bible and tends to disintegrate it into a meaningless mass of contradictions.
One of the most dangerous of the contradictions introduced into Scripture
by the critics is the recognition of two distinct types of religion in
the Bible, the priestly and the prophetic, "prophetic" religion
being the true one and finding its fruition in Christianity. This leads
logically to the rejection of the vicarious atonement of Christ, of which
the "priestly" religion of the Old Testament was directly typical.
The Higher Criticism in short is the error of the Bible disbeliever.

II

The second "divisive" tendency within Christendom today is
one which we hesitate to place in the same category with the one just
mentioned because while it clearly belongs there it differs from the Higher
Criticism in many important respects. If Higher Criticism is the error
of the Bible-disbeliever, "Dispensationalism," as it is called,
is the error of many a Bible-believer. The Higher Criticism is naturalistic
and is largely dominated by the theory of evolution. Dispensationalism
is intensely super-naturalistic and even catastrophic in its view of human
history and destiny. Higher Criticism reduces Scripture to a merely human
book, inspired if at all only as Shakespeare is inspired. Dispensationalism
holds a high view of Scripture and assigns to it a unique inspiration
and authority as the very Word of God. Higher Criticism, at least in its
consistent forms, finds in the Cross a stumbling block or foolishness. Dispensationalism, with an important exception to be noted later, exalts
the Cross as the only hope of hell-deserving sinners. But, despite these
and other differences that might be mentioned, Dispensationalism shares
with Higher Criticism its fundamental error. It is divisive and holds
a doctrine of Scripture which tends to be and is in many respects as destructive
of that high view of Scripture which its advocates assert as it is disastrous
to some of the doctrines most precious to the hearts of those that hold
it. In a word, despite all their differences Higher Criticism and Dispensationalism
are in this one respect strikingly similar. Higher Criticism divides Scripture
up into Documents which differ from or contradict one another. Dispensationalism
divides the Bible up into dispensations which differ from or even contradict
one another; and so radical is this difference as viewed by the extremist
that the Christian of today who accepts the Dispensational view finds
his Bible (the part directly intended for him) shrunk to the compass of
the Imprisonment Epistles.

The divisive tendency inherent in Dispensationalism appears clearly in the definition of a "dispensation" as given, for example, in the widely used Scofield Bible:

"A dispensation is a period of time during which man is tested in respect to obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God. Seven such dispensations are distinguished in Scripture."3

3. P. 5, note 4.Dispensationalists differ as to the number and extent of these dispensations.
The seven recognized in the Scofield Bible are Innocency, Conscience,
Human Government, Promise, Law, Grace, Kingdom. And since during each
dispensation man is tested in respect of some special revelation of the
will of God," the tendency is to confine to or concentrate each of
these specific features in its own proper period, and to set each period
definitely and distinctly over against and even at odds with the others.
This leads to strained exegesis and strong-arm methods of inclusion and
exclusion which are dangerous in the extreme. For the purpose of the present
discussion we shall confine ourselves to the last three of the dispensations: Law, Grace, Kingdom.

One of the best known and at the same time most characteristic illustrations
of the dispensational method and the dangers that beset it is the Lord's
Prayer. There are thousands of Christians today who do not use this prayer:
there are many ministers who have eliminated it from the accustomed order
of worship in their churches. Why is this? The reason is briefly stated
in the comment which is found in the margin of the Scofield Bible on the
Fifth Petition, "and forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors":

"This is legal ground. Cf. Eph. iv. 32, which is grace. Under law
forgiveness is conditioned upon a like spirit in us; under grace we are
forgiven for Christ's sake, and exhorted to forgive because we have been
forgiven. See Matt. xviii. 32 xxvi. 28, note."4

4. P. 1002, note 1."This is legal ground" is the indictment brought by Dispensationalism
against this petition. Law, of course, belongs to the Dispensation of
Law. We are today in the Church age, the Dispensation of Grace. Therefore
this petition and by inference the whole prayer is legal and not for the
Christian. Dr. Haldeman puts it bluntly when he says ". . . . it
does not belong to the Church, it is not for the Christian at all."
He calls it "a prayer that has no more place in the Christian church
than the thunders of Sinai, or the offerings of Leviticus."55. How to Study the Bible, pp. 135, 140.

It should hardly be necessary to call attention to the radical way in
which Dispensationalism thus cuts itself off from historical Protestantism.
Schaff in a brief comparison of "the typical Catechisms of Protestantism,"--Luther's (1529), the Heidelberg (1563), the Anglican (1549), and the
Westminster Shorter Catechism (1647)--says of them all: "They are
essentially agreed in the fundamental doctrines of catholic and evangelical
religion. They teach the articles of the Apostles' Creed, the Ten Commandments,
and the Lord's Prayer; that is, all that is necessary for a man to believe
and to do in order to be saved. They thus exhibit the harmony of the chief
branches of orthodox Protestant Christendom."66. History of the Christian Church, Vol. VI, p. 555.

Three elements common to all--the Apostles' Creed, the Ten Commandments
and the Lord's Prayer!77. In the Westminster Shorter catechism there are 107 questions and answers
of which about forty deal with the Ten commandments and nine with the
Lord's Prayer. Yet many Dispensationalists refuse to recite
the Lord's Prayer, mainly because the Fifth Petition is legal ground;
and of course the inclusion of the Ten commandments in these catechisms
makes them doubly offensive to the thoroughgoing Dispensationalist. For
what could be more legal than the Decalogue?

III

Having noted how radical is the departure of Dispensationalism from traditional
Protestant usage as to the Lord's Prayer, let us examine the reasons given
in the Scofield Bible in support of it. After describing the words of
the "Fifth Petition" as "legal ground," the comment
goes on to say, "Cf. Eph. iv. 32, which is grace." This verse
which reads as follows, "And be ye kind one to another, tender-hearted,
forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you," is interpreted to mean, "Under law forgiveness is conditioned
upon a like spirit in us; under grace we are forgiven for Christ's sake
and exhorted to forgive because we have been forgiven." We are then
referred to "Matt. xviii. 32 and xxvi. 28, note." Turning first
to the latter passage where there is a marginal note which deals with
the subject of "Forgiveness" we read, "Human forgiveness
rests upon and results from the divine forgiveness. In many passages this
is assumed rather than stated, but the principle is declared in Eph. iv.
32; Matt. xviii. 32, 33." We have turned to this note first, because
it indicates with perfect clearness that Matt. xviii. 32, 33, like Eph.
iv. 32, states the principle of forgiveness under grace. This can be the
only meaning of the placing of Eph. iv. 32 and Matt. xviii. 32, 33, together
in the statement: ". . . the principle is declared in Eph. iv. 32; Matt. xviii. 32, 33." Both passages referred to must illustrate the same
thing, the principle of forgiveness under 'grace.' Let us now turn to
Matt. xviii. 32, 33. These verses are a part of the conclusion of the
Parable of the Unmerciful Servant, a passage which sets forth the obligation
of forgiveness with terrible impressiveness

"32. Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him,
O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst
me. 33. Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant,
even as I had pity on thee?"

This according to the Scofield Bible is "grace" and is similar
to Eph. iv. 32. But let us read on to the end of the chapter:

"34. And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors,
till he should pay all that was due unto him. 35. So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye
from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses."

What is verse 35 if not a tremendously impressive enforcement of the "Fifth Petition"? Could its words correspond more exactly
to the "reasons annexed" to that petition--the only petition
in the whole prayer which receives further elucidation and emphasis from
the lips of the Divine Teacher?

"For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses."

And does not this whole principle find clear and beautiful expression
in the words of the Westminster Shorter Catechism? "In the fifth
petition, which is, And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors,
we pray, that God, for Christ's sake, would freely pardon all our sins
which we are the rather encouraged to ask because by his grace we are
enabled from the heart to forgive others."88. The word "freely" is especially noteworthy.
This is not unwarranted exegesis. It is simply the application of the
principle that Scripture, which so clearly teaches that salvation is of
grace, must interpret this passage in harmony, not in conflict with itself.

We have here a striking illustration of one of the worst features of
the Scofield Bible, the frequent ignoring of verses which refute the view
of the editor. Matt. xviii. 32 and 33 are appealed to because they seem,
superficially considered, to support the distinction between "law"
and "grace" that is here insisted on, but Matt. xviii. 35 is
ignored because that verse proves the distinction to be a mistaken one
by teaching exactly what Matt. vi. 12 and its inspired elucidation in
verses 14-15 teach, that only those who forgive may expect to be forgiven.
Either, like the higher critic whose methods he abhors, the Dispensationalist
must divide the Parable of the Unmerciful Servant into two "documents," a "law" document containing verse 35 and a "grace" document
containing verses 32-33 or he must treat that parable throughout as either
"law or grace"99. According to the Scofield Bible Matt. xviii. belongs to the period after
"the kingdom of heaven ...has been morally rejected" and "the
new message " of "rest and service" or "discipleship
has been substituted (cf. Scofield Bible, p. 1011). Since according to
the Scofield Bible the "final rejection" did not take place
till Matt. xxi. (Bullinger puts it at Acts xxviii.), the attempt might
be made to explain the alleged contradiction between "law" and
"grace" in Matt. xviii. 32-35 as due to the period being "transitional".
But there is no excuse for ignoring verse 35, however it may be explained.; or he must admit that the interpretation
which he places on the Fifth Petition is a mistaken one and that the sentiment
expressed in it is eminently Christian and is obligatory upon every true
follower of Him who said to his disciples, When ye pray, say, "...forgive
us our debts as we forgive our debtors..."

While the Dispensational treatment of the Lord's Prayer is sufficiently
startling to the uninitiated, there are other aspects of Dispensationalism
which are even more destructive of a consistently Christian view of the
Scriptures. The issue in the case of the Lord's Prayer concerns the difference
between the dispensation of "law" and that of "grace."
We now turn to a question which concerns or rather becomes especially
insistent as regards the last two dispensations, those of "grace" and of the "kingdom."

IV

The very heart of the Bible is its message of Salvation. It is because
it gives the only true and adequate answer to the question, "What
must I do to be saved?" that the Bible is the most precious Book
in the world. Now the question may very properly be asked in view of the
alleged distinct dispensations, whether the Bible gives a consistent answer
to this question throughout or not. In 'Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth,'
Dr. Scofield makes a statement that is arresting to say the least, "It
should be needless to say that, in this Dispensation, neither Jew nor
Gentile can be saved otherwise than by the exercise of that faith on the
Lord Jesus Christ whereby both are born again..." (p.5) Why the qualifying
words, "in this Dispensation"? the reader naturally asks. Have
there been or are there to be dispensations of which this could not be
said? The very fact that the statement is qualified implies or at least
suggests an affirmative answer.

But the question is far too important to leave the answer to mere inference. Is there definite warrant for such an inference? For an answer to our question we turn back to the Scofield Bible. A comment on the word "Gentiles" at Matt. x. 5 reads thus: "The kingdom was promised to the Jews. Gentiles could be blessed only through Christ crucified and risen.
Cf. John xii. 20-24." Here we have a statement that seems clearly
to teach that there was an essential difference between salvation for
the Jew and salvation for the Gentile. The one needed the kingdom, the
other needed Christ crucified and risen.1010. In justice to Dr. Scofield it should be stated here that he not only
recognizes but stresses the fact that the Old Testament ritual of sacrifice
plainly sets forth in type Christ in his atoning work as Saviour. But
the form of statement here must be admitted to be both unfortunate and
dangerous. We turn to a still more
noteworthy statement. In the comment on the word "everlasting"
in the phrase "everlasting gospel" (Rev. xiv. 6) we are told
in the Scofield Bible that "four forms of the Gospel are to be distinguished." They are the Gospel of the kingdom, the Gospel of the grace of God, the everlasting Gospel, and what Paul calls "my Gospel." The statements regarding all four are informing and should be carefully studied by every one who really desires to understand Dispensationalism. It is with the
first two "forms" that we are here particularly concerned. They
are defined and contrasted in the following terms:

"(1) The Gospel of the kingdom. This is the good news that God purposes
to set up on the earth, in fulfilment of the Davidic Covenant (2 Sam.
vii. 16, and refs.) a kingdom, political, spiritual, Israelitish, universal,
over which God's Son, David's heir, shall be King, and which shall be,
for one thousand years, the manifestation of the righteousness of God
in human affairs. See Matt. iii. 2, note.

Two preachings of this Gospel are mentioned, one past, beginning
with the ministry of John the Baptist, continued by our Lord and His disciples,
and ending with the Jewish rejection of the King. The other is yet future
(Matt. xxiv. 14), during the great tribulation, and immediately preceding
the coming of the King in glory.

(2) The Gospel of the grace of God. This is the good news that Jesus
Christ, the rejected King, has died on the cross for the sins of the world,
that He was raised from the dead for our justification, and that by Him
all that believe are justified from all things. This form of the Gospel
is described in many ways. It is the Gospel 'of God' (Rom. i. i), because
it originates in His love; 'of Christ' (2 Cor. x. 14) because it flows
from His sacrifice, and because He is the alone Object of Gospel faith;
of 'the grace of God' (Acts xx. 24) because it saves those whom the
law curses; of 'the glory' (I Tim. i. 11 ; 2 Cor. iv. 4) because it concerns
Him who is in the glory, and who is bringing the many sons to glory (Heb.
ii. 10); of our 'salvation' (Eph. i. 13) because it is the 'power of God
unto salvation to every one that believeth' (Rom. i. 16); of 'the uncircumcision'
(Gal. ii. 7) because it saves wholly apart from forms and ordinances; of 'peace'
(Eph. vi. 15) because through Christ it makes peace between the sinner
and God, and imparts inward peace." (p.1343, note 1)

The most startling thing about these two "forms" of the Gospel,
when we compare them, is their mutual exclusiveness. The one speaks of
the Davidic King, the other of the crucified and risen Saviour. The Gospel
of the grace of God--in a word, the Cross--belongs to the Church age; the
Gospel of the kingdom was preached before the Church was founded and is
to be preached after the Church is "raptured." But it is a
different Gospel. It is the Gospel of the Crown, not the Cross. This is
consistent Dispensationalism. "Grace" and "the Kingdom" belong to two distinct dispensations which are set definitely in
contrast, and each has a Gospel of its own.1111. The antithesis between these different "forms"
of the Gospel appears especially clearly in a statement in the definition
of the " everlasting Gospel" which is mentioned third in the
list (p. 1343). There we are told definitely, " It is neither the
Gospel of the kingdom, nor of grace". Salvation clearly will be on a quite different basis in the Kingdom age from what it is today in the Church age.

V

It is not the purpose of the present discussion to enter into a consideration
of such problems as the "postponement" theory of the Kingdom
and the "parenthesis" view of the Church, the very intricacy
of which shows, how difficult, how impossible in fact, it is to impose
the dispensational theories upon the Bible. What we are now concerned
to point out is the grievous error of separating in this arbitrary way
between the precious offices of Christ, as Prophet, Priest, and King,
all of which belong in a most real and vital sense to every age. It was
the crucified and risen Lord who had showed his disciples the print of
the nails in his hands who said to them, "All power is given unto
me in heaven and on earth." The present reign of Christ as king of
his Church is a doctrine that is sadly obscured or directly denied by
Dispensationalism. Yet Paul is not speaking of a future Kingdom age but
of a present state when he affirms in writing to the Christians at Colossae
that they have been translated into the kingdom of God's dear Son; or
when he reminds the Church at Ephesus that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ
has exalted Him "far above all principality, and power, and might,
and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but
also in that which is to come." The Westminster Confession of Faith
rightly affirms that the visible Church is "the kingdom of the Lord
Jesus Christ" (Chap XXV.2).
And the Westminster Shorter Catechism declares that "Christ executeth
the office of a king, in subduing us to himself, in ruling and defending
us, and in restraining and conquering all his and our enemies" (Q.26).
To divorce the priestly and kingly offices of Christ, to assign one to
the present age and the other to a future age is to impoverish both. The
Lord Jesus Christ in all his precious and indispensable offices belongs
to each and every age. As Hodge has well expressed it: "The common
doctrine of the Church has ever been, that the plan of salvation has been
the same from the beginning . . . having the same promise, the same Saviour,
the same condition, and the same salvation" (Systematic Theology
Vol. 2, p.366). This does not mean that there is not a valid and proper
distinction to be drawn between the mediatorial kingdom and the final
kingdom, between the Church militant and the Church triumphant. But it
does mean that Christ as Saviour and as King belongs to both, is indispensably
necessary to both.

The distinction between the Church age and the Kingdom age which we have
been considering, a distinction which involves the recognition of a distinct
"Gospel" for each, brings us naturally and inevitably to this
question: How will men be saved in the Kingdom age? For an answer to
this question we turn to the "Summary" on the "Kingdom"
(Old Testament) as given in the Scofield Bible, where we read

"The kingdom is to be established by power, not persuasion, and
is to follow divine judgment upon the Gentile world-powers (Ps. ii. 4-9;
Isa. ix. 7; Dan. ii. 35, 44, 45; vii. 26, 27; Zech. xiv. 1-19). See
Zech. vi. 11, note." (p.977)

It will be observed that practically all the passages here quoted speak
in terms of kingly rule and obedient service, but not in terms of redemption
or atonement.1212. In the comment on Zech. vi. 51, there is definite reference to the priesthood of Christ. But this note is itself an anomaly because according to the definite teaching of the Scofield Bible, the "rejection of the king ", which led directly to the Cross , " was as yet locked up in the secret counsels of God " (p.998). How then could it be revealed in Zech. vi. 11f ? Men are to be saved apparently by obedience to the
King and not by trust in the Saviour. The Sermon on the Mount is said
to give us the "Constitution" of the kingdom. It is "pure law"; and apparently it is to be perfectly kept by all the righteous in the
Kingdom age.1313. p. 999, note 2. It is not expressly stated here that perfect obedience
will constitute "righteousness'' in the Kingdom age. But the inference
is a natural one. It is instructive to note in this connection that the
"exposition of the Davidic Covenant by the prophets" (p.977)
makes no mention of "atonement". Yet we are told that this Covenant
"has not been abrogated but is yet to be fulfilled." Furthermore
we are told elsewhere (p.1226) that this promise "enters the New
Testament absolutely unchanged" and the sections under this head
which describe the future kingdom say nothing of salvation but speak in
terms of royal rule and authority. Chafer ('The Kingdom is, History and
Prophecy', p.49) tells us: "It should be borne in mind that the legal
kingdom requirements as stated in the Sermon on the Mount are meant to
prepare the way for, and condition life in, the earthly Davidic kingdom
when it shall be set up upon the earth..." Thus we observe that the New Testament Kingdom age of
the future has a very important feature in common with the Old Testament
Kingdom age. The Davidic kingdom belonged to and was a part of the dispensation
of "law." The future Kingdom age will likewise be an age of "law," not of grace.

How, then, does the "Gospel of the kingdom" which is, as we have seen, a gospel of power and obedience and belongs to an age of
law, compare in effectiveness with the "Gospel of the grace of God"?
The answer is significant. In the comment on what the Scofield Bible
declares to be "Dispensationally... the most important passage in
the New Testament" (Acts xv. 13f), the statement is made, "The
Gospel [that is, 'the Gospel of the grace of God'] has never anywhere
converted all, but everywhere called out some" (p.1168). But during
the Kingdom age (p.977) which is to follow and apparently show the results
of the preaching of the "Gospel of the kingdom" "the enormous
majority of earth's inhabitants will be saved"; and the comment goes
on to state, "The New Testament (Rev. xx. 1-5) adds a detail of immense
significance - the removal of Satan from the scene. It is impossible to
conceive to what heights of spiritual, intellectual, and physical perfection
humanity will attain in this, its coming age of righteousness and peace
(Isa. xi. 4-9 ; Psa. lxxii. 1-10)." What does this mean, if not that
the preaching of the Cross is relatively of little efficacy as compared
with the exercise of the kingly power at or in connection with the coming
of the King and the "removal of Satan from the scene" in the
Kingdom age? And if the establishment of the kingdom and the removal of
Satan can make it possible for men to attain in that age to such incredible
heights of spiritual, intellectual, and physical perfection, how will
this "enormous majority of earth dwellers" be able to join with
the Church--saints, who never attained to these heights, in singing praises
to the Lamb that was slain, and hath redeemed us by his precious blood?
What meaning will the Cross have for those who have attained to a legal
righteousness in the Kingdom age?

VI

This separation between the Kingdom and the Church which is as unscriptural as it is dangerous leads to one of the most serious
errors of Dispensationalism, the tendency to minimize the importance of
the present Gospel age in the interest of the Kingdom age that is to come.
This is the age of individual conversions, the snatching of a brand here
and there from the burning. That is to be an age of mass conversions,
nations born in a day. Yet this age as has been pointed out is, according
to Dispensationalism, pre-eminently, we may even say exclusively, the
age of the preaching of the Cross. We have said above that the Dispensationalist
with an exception to be noted later, exalts the Cross as the only hope
of hell-deserving sinners. Here we see clearly what the exception is.
It is a very important exception. It is for the dispensation of grace,
for the Church age and for this age only that he exalts the Cross. One
of the most amazing statements to be found in the Scofield Bible concerns
the meaning of the phrase "at hand" as used by Jesus in Matt.
iv. 17:

"'At hand' is never a positive affirmation that the person or thing
said to be 'at hand' will immediately appear, but only that no known or
predicted event must intervene. When Christ appeared to the Jewish people,
the next thing, in the order of revelation as it then stood, should have
been the setting up of the Davidic kingdom. In the knowledge of God, not
yet disclosed, lay the rejection of the kingdom (and King), the long period
of the mystery-form of the kingdom, the world-wide preaching of the cross,
and the out-calling of the Church. But this was as yet locked up in the
secret counsels of God (Matt. xiii. 11, 17; Eph. iii. 3-10)." (p.998
note)

How such a statement can be reconciled as to the Old Testament with the
22nd and 110th Psalms and the 53rd of Isaiah, or as to the New Testament
with the words with which the Baptist greeted our Lord, "Behold the
Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world," or with the
words of the risen Lord to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, "O
fools and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his
glory?" or with the whole grand argument of the Epistle to the Hebrews,
is a mystery. They are simply irreconcilable. But what we are here concerned
to point out is the terrible way in which this treatment of the Cross
disparages it and minimizes its importance in the history of redemption.
The "Gospel of the grace of God" is, according to the Scofield
Bible, the Gospel for the Church age; and the Church age is a parenthesis
of indeterminate length between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks of
Daniel ix. It is an interlude in the history of God's people Israel. It
is a time when the great prophetic clock is silent. It does not figure
in prophetic history.

It is "time out" in sacred chronology. Yet this parenthesis
period is the Church age, the age of the Cross, of the preaching of the
gospel of the grace of God. How could a "Bible Christian" minimize
more seriously the value and centrality of the Cross in Biblical Revelation?1414. The "parenthesis"
view of the Church which is taught in the Scofield Bible sheds important
light upon the distinction drawn there between the Gospel of the grace
of God and the Gospel of the kingdom. Throughout the entire Church age
the Gospel of the grace of God has been and is to be proclaimed by Christians,
i.e. by Church-saints. But if the entire Church, every true Christian,
is to be raptured ''at the (invisible) return of Christ for his saints,
there occurs of necessity a definite break between the Church age and
the Kingdom age which it is difficult to bridge. After the Rapture there
will be no Christians left on earth to preach that Gospel which has been
the power of God unto salvation during the Church age.
Consequently, those who hold this view have recourse to the two witnesses"
(Moses and Elijah, or Enoch and Elijah) of Rev. xi. 3, and a Jewish remnant
who will have turned unto the Lord during the Great Tribulation (Scofield
Bible, p. 1205). They are to take up and proclaim the beautiful gospel
of the kingdom" (Ibid., p.949). We observe, therefore, that the Gospel
of the kingdom differs from the Gospel of the grace of God, no less as
to its contents than as to its heralds. It is to be a continuation of
the Old Testament kingdom and its heralds are to be not the New Testament
apostles but Old Testament saints (Moses or Enoch and Elijah) and not
believing Christians, but Jews, who have not believed at the preaching
of the Gospel of the grace of God during the Church age (had they done
so they would have been raptured), but to whom the preaching of the Cross
was foolishness, and who remained in unbelief until after the Rapture.
How could the break between the Kingdom and the Church be made more emphatic?

This will sound like a gross misrepresentation to many Dispensationalists.

But we ask them simply to ponder the words: "When Christ appeared
to the Jewish people, the next thing in the order of revelation as it
then stood, should have been the setting up of the Davidic kingdom."
We ask them to read again the definition of the "Gospel of the kingdom"
and then to face this question seriously and squarely, Where does the
Cross come in? It is hard to see how any thorough-going dispensationalist
can sing the lines of the familiar hymn, "In the Cross of Christ
I glory, Towering o'er the wrecks of time; 'All the light of sacred story
Gathers round its head sublime'." For, according to the logic of
his position, the Cross belongs to the Church age, not to sacred story
as a whole. And it is a parenthesis, we are tempted to say, merely a parenthesis,
between the Kingdom age that is past and the Kingdom age that is yet to
come.

One of the most characteristic features of Dispensationalism is its pessimistic
view of the present or Church age. The Bible teaches that this is the
age or dispensation of the Spirit. Jesus said to his disciples before
his Death, "It is expedient for you that I go away. For if I go not
away the Comforter will not come unto you." The Bible also teaches
that this is the age of the invisible reign of the Sovereign Lord who
said, "All power is given unto me in heaven and on earth." Yet
the Dispensationalist regards this age as demonstrably bankrupt and is
looking to the Kingdom age to accomplish by a display of kingly power
and through the binding of Satan what the preaching of the Cross has been
unable to accomplish in nineteen Christian centuries. What is this if
not to minimize the Cross? Yet it is the clear teaching of Scripture
and the experience of every true Christian that it is the preaching of
the Cross which is the power of God unto salvation, that it is by his
Cross that the divine Saviour, has drawn, is drawing, and will draw all
men unto Himself.

VII

In what has been said above the writer has been speaking of consistent
Dispensationalism and its implications, and has appealed especially to
the express statements of the Scofield Bible. Fortunately the Dispensationalists
are not thoroughly consistent. Doubtless many of the Dispensationalists
who read this article, if they do read it, will say that they do not draw
these conclusions. The reason the Scofield Bible is such an extremely
difficult book to understand is because the attempt to avoid the logical
implications of a consistent dispensationalism makes it at many points
a jumble of inconsistencies and contradictions. But if we are to have
the distinct dispensations of law, grace and the kingdom, and if the dispensation
of grace, or the Church age, is to be regarded as merely an interlude
in God's dealings with Israel, a parenthesis in the history of redemption,
the inferences and conclusions which we have stated are logical and inevitable.

The fundamental error of Dispensationalism is, as was stated at the outset,
that its attitude toward Scripture is divisive, and consequently destructive
of its essential unity and harmony. What is needed today is a return to
and a hearty recognition of the fundamental importance of that great doctrine
regarding Scripture of the "consent of all the parts." The slogan
of Dispensationalism, "rightly dividing the word of truth,"
is itself a misinterpretation. This exhortation does not mean to divide
up Scripture into dispensations and set each one at variance with the
others, but so to interpret it that by a study of each and every part,
the glorious unity and harmony of the whole shall be exhibited and the
correctness of the exposition of the one part be established by its perfect
agreement with every other part of Scripture as the God-inspired Word.

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

OSWALD T. ALLIS, former Professor of Old Testament in Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia